Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 10514-10560 [08-798]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10514-10560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-798]



[[Page 10513]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating 
the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct 
Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From 
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 10514]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2008-008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AU53


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule 
Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a 
Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population 
Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we or us), hereby 
establishes a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis 
lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States 
(U.S.) and removes this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. The NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the eastern one-third of 
Washington and Oregon, a small part of north-central Utah, and all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, the NRM DPS is no longer an endangered or 
threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The NRM DPS has exceeded its 
biological recovery goals, and all threats in the foreseeable future 
have been sufficiently reduced or eliminated.
    The States of Idaho (2002) and Montana (2003) adopted State laws 
and management plans that meet the requirements of the Act and will 
conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. In 
2007, following a change in State law, Wyoming drafted and approved a 
revised wolf management plan (Wyoming 2007). We have determined that 
this plan meets the requirements of the Act as providing adequate 
regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered 
wolf population into the foreseeable future. Our determination is 
conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management law (W.S. 11-6-302 et 
seq. and 23-1-101, et seq. in House Bill 0213) being fully in effect 
and the wolf management plan being legally authorized by Wyoming 
statutes. If the law is not in effect (discussed in more detail below) 
within 20 days from the date of this publication, we will withdraw this 
final rule and replace it with an alternate final rule that removes the 
Act's protections throughout all of the DPS, except the significant 
portion of the gray wolf's range in northwestern Wyoming outside the 
National Parks.

DATES: This rule becomes effective March 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in preparation of this final rule, are 
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at our Montana office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601. Call 
(406) 449-5225, extension 204 to make arrangements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena 
office (see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449-5225, extension 204. 
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the 
Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the dog family 
(Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) (40-175 
pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974, p. 1). In the 
NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but may weigh 
up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh slightly less than males. Wolves' 
fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure 
white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821).
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, 
Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the U.S., they poisoned, 
trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once widespread species to be 
eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous States (Mech 
1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations were eliminated 
from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent southwestern 
Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolves normally 
live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM, pack sizes average about 
10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex packs have been 
substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) 
(Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2007, Tables 1-3). Packs 
typically occupy large distinct territories from 518 to 1,295 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (200 to 500 square miles (mi\2\)) and defend these 
areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by 
resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become 
regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species conflict, 
other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover 
large areas (See Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS) as they try to 
join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied 
habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 11-17).
    Typically, only the top-ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each 
pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, 
pp. 243-4; Service et al. 2007, Tables 1-3). Females and males 
typically begin breeding as 2-year-olds and may annually produce young 
until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April 
and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al. 
1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Most years, four of these five pups survive 
until winter (Service et al. 1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 
years (Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM 
is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and 
survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability 
per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack social structure 
is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be quickly 
replaced either from within or outside the pack and pups can be reared 
by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003, p. 38; 
Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf 
populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very 
high levels of human-caused mortality or disease. After severe 
declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if 
mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have 
been documented in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, 
pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    For detailed information on the biology of this species see the 
``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003, 
final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous U.S. 
(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf were listed as endangered, 
including the NRM gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus), the eastern timber 
wolf (C.l. lycaon) in

[[Page 10515]]

the northern Great Lakes region, the Mexican wolf (C.l. baileyi) in 
Mexico and the southwestern U.S., and the Texas gray wolf (C.l. 
monstrabilis) of Texas and Mexico (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). In 
1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting the 
gray wolf as endangered at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the 
conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the gray 
wolf was reclassified to threatened. At that time, critical habitat was 
designated in Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. On February 8, 2007, 
we established a Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS and removed it from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052).
    On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for the gray 
wolf under section 10(j) of the Act including the Yellowstone 
Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the 
Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 
1994). These designations, which are found at 50 CFR 17.40(i), assisted 
us in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and 
in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). In 2005 and 2008, we revised 
these regulations to provide increased management flexibility for this 
recovered wolf population in States with Service-approved post-
delisting wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 
4270, January 28, 2008). The revisions are at 50 CFR 17.84(n).
    The NRM wolf population is a metapopulation comprised of three core 
recovery areas. It has a range (wolf breeding pairs, wolf packs, and 
routine dispersing wolves) that encompasses all of Idaho, most of 
Montana and Wyoming, and parts of adjacent States (Service 2005, p. 1-
2). It achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the 
end of 2000 (Service et al. 2007, Table 4). The temporal portion of the 
recovery goal was achieved in 2002 when the numerical and 
distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the third successive 
year (Service et al. 2007, Table 4). To meet the Act's requirements, 
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed to develop post-delisting wolf 
management plans to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms would 
exist should the Act's protections be removed. In 2004, the Service 
determined that Montana and Idaho's laws and wolf management plans were 
adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf population would 
be maintained above recovery levels (see Recovery section). However, we 
determined the 2003 Wyoming legislation and wolf management plan 
(Wyoming 2003) were not adequate to assume that Wyoming's portion of 
the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels 
(Williams 2004). Wyoming challenged this determination, but the Federal 
District Court in Wyoming dismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, D. 
Wyoming 2005). Wyoming appealed that decision, and on April 3, 2006, 
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court decision 
(442 F. 3rd 1262).
    On July 19, 2005, we received a petition from the Office of the 
Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 
(WGFC) to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by establishing a 
NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, we announced 
a 12-month finding that the petitioned action (delisting in all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming 
State law and wolf management plan did not provide the necessary 
regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and 
distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be 
conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming challenged this finding in Federal 
District Court (State of Wyoming, et al. v. USDOI, CA No. 06CV0245J). 
Wyoming has indicated that they will deem the claims in the pending 
litigation settled and will request that the court dismiss the 
litigation upon publication of this final rule by February 28, 2008 
(Freudenthal 2007b).
    On February 8, 2007, we proposed to designate the NRM DPS of the 
gray wolf and to delist all or most portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 
6106). Specifically, we proposed to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The proposal 
noted that the area in northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks 
(i.e., YNP, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller Memorial 
Parkway) would only be delisted in the final rule if adequate State 
regulatory mechanisms were developed. On July 6, 2007, the Service 
extended the comment period in order to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming 
wolf management plan and State law that we believed, if implemented, 
could allow the wolves in northwestern Wyoming to be removed from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 36939). On November 
16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan 
(Cleveland 2007, p. 1). We then determined this plan provides adequate 
regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered 
wolf population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 1-2). Our 
determination was conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management law 
being fully in effect and the wolf management plan being legally 
authorized by Wyoming statutes. The plan automatically goes into effect 
upon the Governor's certification to the Wyoming Secretary of State 
that all of the provisions found in the 2007 Wyoming wolf management 
law have been met (W.S. Sec. Sec.  23-1-101 et sec.; discussed in 
further detail in Factor D below) (Freudenthal 2007b, p. 1-3).
    For detailed information on previous Federal actions also see the 
2003 reclassification rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), the 2006 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 6634, February 8, 
2006), the 12-month finding on Wyoming's petition to delist (71 FR 
43410, August 1, 2006), and the February 8, 2007, proposed rule to 
designate the NRM population of gray wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6106).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to 
indicate that listing any species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any 
DPS of these taxa may be warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS 
provision of the Act and congressional guidance, the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a policy regarding 
the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the 
Act (61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996). Under this policy, three 
factors are considered in a decision regarding the establishment and 
listing, reclassification, or delisting of a DPS. The first two factors 
determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS--(1) 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the taxon, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a 
DPS. Then the third factor, the population segment's conservation 
status, is evaluated in relation to the Act's standards for listing, 
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or 
threatened).

Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS

    We defined the geographic boundaries for the area to be evaluated 
for DPS status based on discreteness and

[[Page 10516]]

significance as defined by our DPS policy. The DPS policy allows an 
artificial (e.g., State line) or manmade (e.g., road or highway) 
boundary to be used as a boundary of convenience for clearly 
identifying the geographic area for a DPS. The NRM DPS includes all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and 
Oregon, and a small part of north central Utah. Specifically, the DPS 
includes that portion of Washington east of Highway 97 and Highway 17 
north of Mesa and that portion of Washington east of Highway 395 south 
of Mesa. It includes that portion of Oregon east of Highway 395 and 
Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of 
Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. Finally, the NRM DPS includes that 
portion of Utah east of Highway 84 and north of Highway 80. The center 
of these roads is deemed the border of the NRM DPS (See Figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE08.025

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    One factor we considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM DPS 
was the current distribution of known wolf packs in 2006 (Service et 
al. 2007,

[[Page 10518]]

Figure 1) (except four packs in northwestern Wyoming that did not 
persist). We also examined the annual distribution of wolf packs from 
2002 (the first year the population exceeded the recovery goal) through 
2006 (Service et al. 2003-2007, Figure 1; Bangs et al. in press). 
Because outer distribution changed little in these years, we used the 
2004 data because it had already been analyzed in the February 8, 2006 
ANPR (71 FR 6634). Wolf packs have been documented in Montana, Idaho, 
or Wyoming so we include these three States in the DPS.
    Dispersal distances also played a key role in determining the 
boundaries for the NRM DPS. We examined the known dispersal distances 
of over 200 marked dispersing wolves from the NRM from 1993 through 
2005 (Jimenez et al. in prep.). These data indicate that the average 
dispersal distance of wolves from the NRM was about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd 
and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Jimenez et al. in prep; Thiessen 2007, p. 
33). We determined that 300 km (190 mi), three times the average 
dispersal distance, was a breakpoint in our data for unusually long-
distance dispersal out from existing wolf pack territories (Jimenez et 
al. in prep., Figure 2 and 3). Only 10 wolves (none of which 
subsequently bred) have dispersed farther outside the core population 
areas and remained in the United States. None of these wolves returned 
to the core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Only 
dispersal from the NRM wolf packs to areas within the United States was 
considered in these calculations because we were trying to determine 
the appropriate NRM DPS boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to Canada 
were not considered in our calculation of average dispersal distance 
because the distribution of suitable habitat and wolves and level of 
human persecution in Canada is significantly different than in the 
U.S., potentially affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We plotted average 
dispersal distance and three times the average dispersal distance from 
existing wolf pack territories in the NRM. The resulting map indicated 
a wide area where wolf dispersal was common enough to support 
intermittent additional pack establishment from the core recovery areas 
given the availability of patches of nearby suitable habitat (Service 
2005, p. 1-2). Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM may not 
be applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 2003, 
pp. 13-16).
    We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555-558) and throughout the western 
U.S. (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27-30) by 
comparing the biological and physical characteristics of areas 
currently occupied by wolf packs with the characteristics of adjacent 
areas that remain unoccupied by wolf packs. The basic findings and 
predictions of those models (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et 
al. 2006, p. 32; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559) were similar in many 
respects. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS is typically 
characterized by public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant 
year-round wild ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers 
of domestic livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic 
sheep (Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low human populations (see 
Factor A). The models indicate that a large block of suitable wolf 
habitat exists in central Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller extent in 
northwestern Montana. These findings support the recommendations of the 
1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987) that identified those three 
areas as the most likely locations to support a recovered wolf 
population and are consistent with the actual distribution of all wolf 
breeding pairs in the NRM since 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1; 
Service et al. 1999-2007, Figures 1-4, Tables 1-3). The models indicate 
little habitat is suitable to support wolf packs within the portion of 
the NRM DPS in eastern Montana, southern Idaho, eastern Wyoming, 
Washington, Oregon, or northcentral Utah (See Factor A).
    Unsuitable habitat also was important in determining the boundaries 
of the NRM DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and 
Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 540-541; 2006, p. 27) and our observations 
during the past 20 years (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al. 
2007, Figures 1-4, Table 4) indicate that non-forested rangeland and 
croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and high 
desert) preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. This 
unsuitability is due to high rates of wolf mortality, high densities of 
livestock compared to wild ungulates, chronic conflict with livestock 
and pets, local cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf 
behavioral characteristics that make them vulnerable to human-caused 
mortality in open landscapes (See Factor A). We looked at the 
distribution of large expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a 
broad boundary separating the NRM DPS from both the southwestern and 
midwestern wolf populations and from the core of any other possible 
wolf population that might develop in the foreseeable future in the 
western U.S.
    We included the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon and a small 
portion of north central Utah within the NRM DPS, because--(1) These 
areas are within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from the core wolf 
population and routinely used by dispersing wolves; (2) lone dispersing 
wolves have been documented in these areas more than once in recent 
times (Jimenez et al. in prep.); (3) these areas contain some suitable 
habitat (see Factor A); and (4) the potential for connectivity exists 
between the relatively small and fragmented patches of suitable habitat 
in these areas with larger blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS. 
If wolf breeding pairs establish in these areas, habitat suitability 
models suggest these nearby areas would likely be more connected to the 
core recovery areas in central Idaho and northwestern Wyoming than to 
any future wolf populations that might become established in other 
large blocks of potentially suitable habitat farther beyond the NRM DPS 
border. As noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable habitat would 
isolate any wolf breeding pairs within the NRM DPS from other large 
patches of suitable habitat to the west or south (Carroll et al. 2003, 
p. 541).
    Although we have received reports of individual wolves and wolf 
packs in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp. 
7-13), agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date no 
individual wolves or packs have been confirmed there (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Jimenez et al. in prep.). Intervening 
unsuitable habitat makes it highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM 
DPS have dispersed to the North Cascades in recent history. However, if 
wolves dispersed into this area, they would remain protected by the Act 
as endangered because it is outside of the NRM DPS.
    We include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM DPS 
because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply Statewide; and (2) 
expanding the DPS beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely dispersal 
distances to include extreme eastern Montana and Wyoming adds only 
unsuitable habitat and does not affect the distinctness of the NRM DPS. 
Although including all of Wyoming in the NRM DPS results in including 
portions of the Sierra Madre, the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we do 
not consider these areas to be suitable wolf habitat because of their 
size, shape, and distance from a strong source of dispersing wolves. 
Oakleaf et al. (2006,

[[Page 10519]]

pp. 558-559) chose not to analyze these areas of southeast Wyoming 
because they are fairly intensively used by livestock and are 
surrounded with, and interspersed by, private land, making pack 
establishment and persistence unlikely. While Carroll et al. (2003, p. 
541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically predicted these areas were suitable 
habitat, the model predicted that under current conditions these areas 
were largely sink habitat and that by 2025 (within the foreseeable 
future) they were likely to be ranked as low occupancy because of human 
population growth and road development.
    We chose not to extend the NRM DPS border east beyond Montana and 
Wyoming, because those adjacent portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
and Nebraska are far outside the predicted routine dispersal range of 
gray wolves from the NRM. In addition, the available information on 
potentially suitable habitat indicates that Colorado and additional 
areas of Utah to the south and west of the NRM DPS include large areas 
of potentially suitable but unoccupied habitat (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 
541). The current distribution of wolf packs in the NRM wolf population 
encompasses most of the suitable habitat, that area is surrounded by 
unsuitable habitat, and the nearest other blocks of suitable habitat 
are far beyond the expected dispersal distance of wolves that might 
form new breeding pairs. Therefore, we concluded that a smaller NRM DPS 
that contains the core recovery areas and the adjacent areas of largely 
unsuitable habitat where routine wolf dispersal could be expected, but 
that excludes contiguous blocks of potentially suitable habitat to the 
west and south that are outside the routine wolf dispersal area is 
representative of the current and future status of the existing NRM 
wolf population and consistent with our DPS policy.

Analysis for Discreteness

    Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions--(1) Is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Taxon--The eastern 
edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 644 km (400 mi) from the 
western edge of the WGL DPS core wolf population (eastern Minnesota) 
and is separated from it by hundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat 
(see Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS border is about 724 km 
(450 mi) from the nonessential experimental populations of wolves in 
the southwestern U.S. with vast amounts of unoccupied marginal or 
unsuitable habitat separating them. No wild wolves have been confirmed 
west of the NRM DPS boundary (although occasionally we get unconfirmed 
reports and 2 wolves were killed close to that boundary). While one 
dispersing wolf was confirmed east and one south of the NRM DPS 
boundary, no wolf packs have ever been found there. No wolves from 
other U.S. wolf populations are known to have dispersed as far as the 
NRM DPS.
    Although wolves can disperse over 1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual 
travel distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166-
167; Ream et al. 1991, pp. 351-352; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; 
Missouri Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 1-2; Jimenez et al. in 
prep.; Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 1631), the average dispersal of NRM 
wolves is about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; 
Jimenez et al. in prep.; Thiessen 2007, p. 72). Only 10 of over 200 
confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from 1992 through 2005 have been 
over 300 km (190 mi) and outside the core recovery areas (Boyd and 
Pletscher. 1999, p. 1094; Jimenez et al. in prep.). Undoubtedly many 
other dispersal events have occurred but not been detected because only 
30 percent of the NRM wolf population has been radio-collared. All but 
two of these known U.S. long-distance dispersers remained within the 
NRM DPS. None of them found mates or survived long enough to form packs 
or breed in the U.S. (Jimenez et al. in prep.).
    The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond 
the border of the NRM DPS was killed by a vehicle collision along 
Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado in spring 2004. Video footage 
of a black wolf-like canid taken near Walden in northern Colorado in 
early 2006, suggests another dispersing wolf may have traveled into 
Colorado. The subsequent status or location of that animal is unknown. 
Finally, in spring 2006, the carcass of a male black wolf was found 
along Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. Genetic testing confirmed 
it was a wolf that had dispersed from the GYA. We expect that 
occasional lone wolves will continue to disperse between and beyond the 
core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into 
States adjacent to the NRM DPS. However, pack development and 
persistence outside the NRM DPS is unlikely because wolves that 
disperse as individuals typically have low survival (Pletscher et al. 
1997, p. 459) and suitable habitat is limited and distant (Carroll et 
al. 2003, p. 541) from the NRM DPS.
    No connectivity currently exists between the NRM, WGL, and 
Southwestern gray wolf populations, nor are there any resident wolf 
packs in intervening areas. While it is theoretically possible that a 
lone wolf might traverse over 644 km (400 mi) from one population to 
the other, movement between these populations has never been documented 
and is extremely unlikely because of both the distance and the large 
areas of unsuitable habitat between the populations. Furthermore, the 
DPS policy does not require complete separation of one DPS from other 
populations, but instead requires some ``marked separation.'' Thus, if 
occasional individual wolves or packs disperse among populations, the 
NRM DPS could still display the required discreteness. Based on the 
information presented above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves 
are markedly separated from all other gray wolf populations in the U.S.
    Differences Among U.S. and Canadian Wolf Populations--The DPS 
policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the 
boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control of 
exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between the 
countries. Significant differences exist in management between U.S. and 
Canadian wolf populations. About 52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in 
Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). 
Because of this abundance, wolves in Canada are not protected by 
Federal laws and are only minimally protected in most Canadian 
provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike Canada, 
Federal protection and intensive management has been necessary to 
recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). When delisted, States in the NRM DPS 
would carefully monitor and manage to retain populations above the 
recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, we will continue to use the 
U.S.-Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the NRM DPS due to 
the difference in control of exploitation, conservation

[[Page 10520]]

status, and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries.

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine that a population segment is discrete, we next 
consider available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon 
to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may 
include, but is not limited to, the following factors: (1) Persistence 
of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or 
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population 
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; 
(3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/
or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. 
Below we address factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the 
NRM DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic 
wolves, the NRM has among the highest diversity of large predators and 
native ungulate prey species, resulting in complex ecological 
interaction between the ungulate prey, predator and scavenger groups, 
and vegetation (Smith et al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, gray wolves 
share habitats with black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears 
(U.arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis concolor), lynx (Lynx 
canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes 
(Vulpes vulpes), badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), fisher 
(Martes pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The unique and 
diverse assemblage of native prey include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule 
deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 
moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep 
(Ovis canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), pronghorn 
antelope (Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison bison) (only in the 
GYA), and beaver (Castor canadensis). This complexity leads to unique 
dramatic and unique ecological cascades in pristine areas, such as in 
YNP. While these effects likely still occur at varying degrees 
elsewhere, they are increasingly modified and subtle the more an area 
is affected by humans (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, 
pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, 
p. 2135; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 1245). For example, wolves appear to 
be changing elk behavior and elk relationships and competition with 
other native ungulates in YNP. These complex interactions may increase 
streamside willow production and survival (Ripple and Beschta 2004, p. 
755), that in turn can affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds 
(Nievelt 2001, p. 1). This suspected pattern of wolf-caused changes 
also may be occurring with scavengers, whereby wolf predation is 
providing a year-round source of food for a diverse variety of carrion 
feeders (Wilmers et al. 2003, p. 996; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 571). 
The wolf population in the NRM has extended the southern range of the 
contiguous gray wolf population in western North America nearly 400 
miles (640 km) into a much more diverse, ecologically complex, and 
unique assemblage of species than is found elsewhere within occupied 
wolf habitat in most of the northern hemisphere.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Wolves once lived 
throughout most of North America. Wolves have been extirpated from most 
of the southern portions of their historic North American range. The 
loss of the NRM wolf population would represent a significant gap in 
the species' holarctic range in that this loss would create a 15-degree 
latitudinal or over 1,600-km (1,000-mi) gap across the Rocky Mountains 
between the Mexican wolf and wolves in Canada. If this potential gap 
were realized, substantial cascading ecological impacts, such as 
behavioral changes in elk that reduced browsing pressure and allowed 
increased willow growth in riparian areas that can then support beaver 
or nesting song birds, would occur in the NRM, most noticeably in the 
most pristine and wildest areas (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; 
Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite 
and Smith in press, p. 1-6).
    Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous U.S. and 
the portion of the historic range the conterminous U.S. represents, 
recovery in the lower 48 States has long been viewed as important to 
the taxon (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The 
NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it is 1 of only 
3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and currently 
constitutes nearly 25 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 States.
    We conclude, based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, that the NRM DPS is significant to the taxon in that NRM 
wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would 
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the 
NRM DPS meets the criterion of significance under our DPS policy. 
Because the NRM gray wolf population is both discrete and significant, 
it is a valid DPS. The conservation status of the DPS is discussed 
below (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section).

Recovery

    Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria--Shortly 
after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete 
a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et 
al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery plan) was 
approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 
1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are 
instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other 
partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on 
criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There 
are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species and recovery may 
be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or 
more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have 
been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that the 
threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust 
enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or to delist. In 
other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were 
not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These 
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery 
plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process 
requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the 
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to re-establish and maintain 
viable populations of the NRM wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) in its 
former range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). The revised 
recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) specifies a recovery criterion of a 
minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite 
sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 
3 successive years in each of 3 core recovery areas--(1) Northwestern

[[Page 10521]]

Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and 
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private 
lands), (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church 
River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly 
Federal, lands), and (3) the YNP area (including the Absaroka-
Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; and 
adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended that wolf 
establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery areas, 
but that connectivity between them be encouraged. However, no attempts 
were made to prevent wolf pack establishment outside of the recovery 
areas unless chronic conflict required resolution (Service 1994, p. 1-
15, 16; Service 1999; p. 2). The recovery plan states that if 2 
recovery areas maintain a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive 
years, the gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to threatened 
status, and if all 3 recovery areas maintain a minimum of 10 breeding 
pairs for 3 successive years, then the NRM wolf population can be 
considered fully recovered and can be considered for delisting.
    The 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) on wolf 
reintroduction reviewed wolf recovery in the NRM and the adequacy of 
the recovery goals because we were concerned that the 1987 goals might 
be insufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:68-78). The Service conducted a 
thorough literature review of wolf population viability analysis and 
minimum viable populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf 
populations, surveyed the opinions of 43 wolf experts, of which 25 
responded, and incorporated our own expertise into a review of the NRM 
wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the Service's EIS and 
in a peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts and 
Carbyn 1995, p. 26-38). Our analysis concluded that the 1987 recovery 
goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that modifications were 
warranted on the basis of more recent information about wolf 
distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We agree with Fritts and 
Carbyn (1995, p. 26) that ``Data on survival of actual wolf populations 
suggest greater resiliency than indicated by theory'' and theoretical 
treatments of population viability ``have created unnecessary dilemmas 
for wolf recovery programs by overstating the required population 
size''. Based on our analysis and peer review comments, we concluded 
that ``Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a 
metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of 
subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should 
have a high probability of long-term persistence'' because such a 
population would contain enough individuals in successfully reproducing 
packs distributed over distinct but somewhat connected large areas to 
be viable for the long term (Service 1994, pp. 6:75). A population at 
or above this size would contain at least 30 successfully reproducing 
packs and ample individuals to ensure long-term population viability. 
In addition the metapopulation configuration and distribution 
throughout secure suitable habitat would ensure that each core recovery 
area would provide a recovered population that would be distributed 
over a large enough area to provide resilience to natural or man-caused 
events that may temporarily affect one core recovery area. No wolf 
population of this size and distribution has gone extinct in recent 
history unless it was deliberately eradicated by humans (Boitani 2003, 
321-331). We further determined that a metapopulation of this size and 
distribution among the three core recovery areas within the area we now 
identify as the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population that would 
fully achieve our recovery objectives.
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf 
population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 
1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We surveyed 
86 biologists, of which 50 responded, with expertise in wolves and 
population viability from North America and Europe for their 
professional opinions regarding a wide range of issues related to the 
NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature, 
including wolf population viability analysis from other areas (Bangs 
2002, p. 1-9). Despite varied professional opinions and a great 
diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery 
goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate 
than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a 
viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought 
connectivity (either natural or human-facilitated) was important to 
maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population 
viability. Reviewers also recommended other concepts/numbers for 
recovery goals but most were slight modifications to those we 
recommended in our 1994 analysis. While experts strongly (78%) 
supported our 1994 conclusions that a metapopulation of at least 30 
breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves would provide for a viable wolf 
population, they also concluded that wolf population viability was 
enhanced by higher (500 or more wolves) rather than lower population 
levels (300) and longer (more than 3 years) rather than shorter (3 
years) demonstrated time frames. The more numerous and widely 
distributed a species is, the higher its probability of population 
viability will be. However, the Act requires us to ensure a species is 
no longer threatened or endangered not that its viability would be 
theoretically maximized. A wolf metapopulation of at least 30 breeding 
pairs and at least 300 wolves ensures it will remain viable and 
recovered. A slight majority indicated that the 1987 recovery goal, of 
only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female capable of 
breeding) in each of three distinct recovery areas, may be viable, 
given the persistence of other small wolf populations in other parts of 
the world. The results of previous population viability analysis for 
other wolf populations varied widely, and similar to our 1994 analysis, 
reviewers concluded that theoretical results were strongly dependent on 
the variables and assumptions used in such models and conclusions often 
predicted different outcomes than actual empirical data had 
conclusively demonstrated. Based on that review, we reaffirmed our more 
relevant and stringent 1994 definition of wolf breeding pairs, 
population viability, and recovery (Service 1994, p. 6:75).
    We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs 
because wolf populations are maintained by packs that successfully 
raise pups. We use ``breeding pairs'' to describe successfully 
reproducing packs (Service 1994, pp. 6:67; Bangs 2002, p. 7-8; Mitchell 
et al. in press). Breeding pairs are only measured in winter because 
most wolf mortality occurs in spring/summer/fall and winter is the 
beginning of the annual courtship and breeding season for wolves. Often 
we do not know if the specific pack actually contains an adult male, 
adult female, and two pups in winter; however, pack size has proven to 
have a strong correlation with breeding pair status and by simply 
knowing the size of wolf packs in mid-winter we can reliably estimate 
the number of breeding pairs (Ausband 2006; Mitchell et al. in press). 
In the future, the States will be able to use pack size in winter as a 
surrogate to reliably identify each pack's

[[Page 10522]]

contribution toward meeting our breeding pair recovery criteria and to 
better predict the effect of managing for certain pack sizes on wolf 
population recovery.
    We have also determined that an essential part of achieving 
recovery is an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and 
individual wolves among the three States and the three core recovery 
areas. A wolf metapopulation that is equitably distributed among the 
three core recovery areas provides each area with enough successfully 
reproducing packs and individuals to withstand any threats to it and to 
allow for local adaptation to the ecological conditions within each 
area (e.g., bison in the GYA, white-tailed deer in northwestern 
Montana, or steep terrain of central Idaho). In addition, a minimum 
number of successfully reproducing packs and individual wolves in each 
core recovery area ensures a consistent strong source of dispersing 
individuals between and among the three recovery areas to consistently 
occupy suitable habitat, form new or join existing packs, and provide 
the opportunity for genetic and demographic mixing within the 
population to maintain its viability and resilience. Like peer 
reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf recovery and 
long-term wolf population viability is dependent on its distribution as 
well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding pairs and wolves. 
While uniform distribution is not necessary, a well-distributed 
population with no one State/recovery area maintaining a 
disproportionately low number of packs or number of individual wolves 
is needed to maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to core 
recovery areas and other suitable habitat throughout the NRM.
    Following the 2002 review, we began to use States, in addition to 
recovery areas, to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et 
al. 2003-2007, Table 4). Because Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each 
contain the vast majority of one of the original three core recovery 
areas, we determined the metapopulation structure would be conserved by 
equally dividing the overall recovery goal between the three States. 
This approach made each State's responsibility for wolf conservation 
fair, consistent, and clear. It avoided any possible confusion that one 
State might assume all of the responsibility for maintaining the 
required number of wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a shared core 
recovery area. State regulatory authorities and traditional management 
of resident game populations occur on a State-by-State basis. 
Management by State would still maintain a robust wolf population in 
each core recovery area because they each contain manmade or natural 
refugia from high levels of human-caused mortality (e.g., National 
Parks, wilderness areas, and remote Federal lands) that guarantee those 
areas remain the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and source of 
dispersing wolves in each State.
    Recovery targets by State promote connectivity and genetic exchange 
between the metapopulation segments by avoiding management that focuses 
solely on wolf breeding pairs in relatively distinct core recovery 
areas and promote a minimum level of potential natural dispersal to and 
from each population segment. This approach also will increase the 
numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the GYA because it is 
shared by all three States. Wyoming alone has committed to maintain at 
least 15 breeding pairs (with at least 7 of those breeding pairs 
outside the National Parks) and 150 wolves, so wolves in the Montana 
and Idaho portion of the GYA would be in addition to those required to 
exceed minimal recovery area levels. A large and well-distributed 
population within the GYA is especially important because it is the 
most isolated core recovery area within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 
2006, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19).
    The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum 
number of breeding pairs and wolves needed to achieve recovery. To 
ensure that the NRM wolf population continues to exceed the recovery 
goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, Montana (2003), Idaho (2002; 
2007), and Wyoming (2007) have committed to manage for at least 15 
breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves per State in mid-winter and 
maintain its metapopulation structure. Because the recovery goal 
components are measured in mid-winter when the wolf population is near 
its annual low point, the average annual wolf population will be much 
higher than these minimal goals. At this point in time, it is unknown 
how many wolves and breeding pairs will ultimately result from 
implementation of the State management plans except that each State 
plan's management objectives assure that the NRM DPS will certainly be 
well over a combined total of 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves. Each 
State has committed to manage for at least 150 wolves and 15 breeding 
pairs by regulating human-caused mortality. If each of the States 
managed to have only 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves (which is 
extremely unlikely since each would have to be at their lowest 
allowable level at the same time and wolves will still also be present 
in National Parks, wilderness areas, and remote public lands where 
sharp reductions in wolf numbers are unlikely), then 45 breeding pairs 
would likely result in more than 450 wolves. Service data since 1986 
indicate that, within the NRM DPS, each breeding pair has corresponded 
to 14 wolves in mid-winter (Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    These goals were designed to provide the NRM gray wolf population 
with sufficient representation, resilience, and redundancy for its 
long-term conservation (See Summary of Threats Analysis section for 
details). We have expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly 
re-evaluate, and when necessary modify, the recovery goals (Service 
1987, p. 12; Service 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 
26; Bangs 2002, p. 1). After evaluating all available information, we 
conclude the best scientific and commercial data available continues to 
support the ability of these recovery goals to ensure the population 
does not again become in danger of extinction.
    Monitoring and Managing Recovery--In 1989, we formed an Interagency 
Wolf Working Group (Working Group) composed of Federal, State, and 
Tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; 
Service et al. 1989-2007, p. 1). The Working Group conducted four basic 
recovery tasks (Service et al. 1989-2007, p. 1-2), in addition to the 
standard enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed 
species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; 
(2) control wolves that attacked livestock by moving them, conducting 
other non-lethal measures, or killing them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 7); 
(3) conduct research and publish scientific publications on wolf 
relationships to ungulate prey, other carnivores and scavengers, 
livestock, and people; and (4) provide accurate science-based 
information to the public and mass media so that people could develop 
their opinions about wolves and wolf management from an informed 
perspective.
    The size and distribution of the NRM wolf population is estimated 
by the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is 
published in an interagency annual report (Service et al. 1989-2007, 
Table 4, Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our 
cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored over 940 wolves 
in the NRM to assess population status, conduct research, and to 
reduce/resolve conflict with livestock. The Working

[[Page 10523]]

Group's annual population estimates represent the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding year-end NRM gray wolf population 
size and trends, as well as distributional and other information.
    Recovery by State--At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met 
its overall numerical and distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 
30 breeding pairs and over 300 wolves well-distributed among Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming (Service et al. 2001, Table 4; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 
2003). This minimum recovery goal was exceeded every year since 2000 
(Service et al. 2002-2007, Table 4; Service 2007a). Because the 
recovery goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the temporal 
element of recovery was not achieved until the end of 2002 when 663 
wolves and 49 breeding pairs were present (Service et al. 2003, Table 
4). At the end of 2007, the NRM wolf population achieved its numerical 
and distributional recovery goal for 8 consecutive years (68 FR 15804, 
April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006; Service et al. 2001-2007, 
Table 4; Service 2007a).
    For the State-by-State recovery goals, Idaho and Wyoming first 
achieved the minimum recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 
in 2000, and Montana first achieved them in 2002. All three States have 
met or exceeded this goal every year since it was first achieved. In 
late 2007, preliminary estimates indicate there are 394 wolves in 37 
breeding pairs in Montana, 788 wolves in 41 breeding pairs in Idaho, 
and 362 wolves in 27 breeding pairs in Wyoming for about 1,545 wolves 
in 105 potential breeding pairs in the NRM wolf population (Service 
2007a). The NRM wolf population increased about 24 percent annually 
from 1995 to 2006 (Service et al. 2007, Table 4). Figure 2 illustrates 
wolf population trends by State from 1979 to 2006.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10524]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE08.026

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    As discussed previously, after the 2002 peer review of the wolf 
recovery efforts, we began using States, in addition to recovery areas, 
to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2007, 
Table 4). However, because the original recovery plan included goals 
for core recovery areas we have included the following discussion on 
the history of the recovery efforts and status of these core recovery 
areas, including how the wolf population's distribution and 
metapopulation structure is important to maintaining its viability and 
how the biological characteristics of each core recovery area differ 
(Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area-- The 
Northwestern Montana Recovery Area's 84,800 km\2\ (33,386 mi\2\) 
includes: Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and 
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private 
lands in northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. Wolves 
there are listed as endangered.

[[Page 10525]]

Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream et 
al. 1989). The natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize 
empty habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 17-19), the interim control 
plan (Service 1988, 1999), and the interagency recovery program 
combined to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers (Bangs 
1991, p.7-13). By 1996, the number of wolves had grown to about 70 
wolves in 7 known breeding pairs. However, since 1997, the estimated 
number of breeding pairs and wolves has fluctuated, partly due to 
actual population size and partly due to monitoring effort. It varied 
from 4 to 12 breeding pairs and from 49 to 171 wolves (Service et al. 
2007, Table 4) but generally increased. In 2007, we estimated 214 
wolves in 24 breeding pairs in the northwestern Montana recovery area 
(Service 2007a).
    The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves 
than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat 
and it is more fragmented (Oakleaf et al. 2006. p. 560). Some of the 
variation in our wolf population estimates for northwestern Montana is 
due to the difficulty of counting wolves in the areas' thick forests. 
Wolves in northwestern Montana also prey mainly on white-tailed deer, 
resulting in smaller packs and territories, which makes packs more 
difficult to detect (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 878). Increased monitoring 
efforts in northwestern Montana by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 
(MFWP) since 2005 were likely responsible for some of the higher 
population estimates. Wolf numbers in 2003 and 2004 also likely 
exceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves but were not documented 
simply due to less intensive monitoring those years (Service et al. 
2007, Table 4; Service 2007a). Wolf numbers in northwestern Montana 
have exceeded 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs for at least the past 3 
years, and probably the last 6 years (Service et al. 2007, Table 4).
    Routine dispersal of wolves has been documented among northwestern 
Montana, central Idaho, and adjacent Canadian populations, 
demonstrating that northwestern Montana's wolves are demographically 
and genetically linked to both the wolf population in Canada and in 
central Idaho (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547-8; Boyd and Pletscher 
1999, pp. 1105-1106; Sime 2007, p. 4; Jimenez et al. in prep.). Because 
of fairly contiguous but fractured suitable habitat, wolves dispersing 
into northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to join or 
form new packs and supplement this portion of the overall NRM wolf 
population (Boyd et al. 1995, p. 140; Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; 
Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Jimenez et al. in prep; vonHoldt et al. 
2007, p. 19; Thiessen 2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4).
    Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness complex, northwestern 
Montana lacks a large core refugium that contains large numbers of 
overwintering wild ungulates and few livestock. Therefore, wolf numbers 
may not ever be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in the 
Central Idaho or GYA core recovery areas. However, this portion of the 
NRM DPS has persisted for nearly 20 years, is robust today, and habitat 
there is capable of supporting 200 wolves (Service et al. 2007, Table 
4). State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management 
plan (2003), will ensure this portion of the NRM DPS continues to 
thrive (see Factor D).
    Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area--The Central Idaho 
Recovery Area's 53,600 km\2\ (20,700 mi\2\) includes: The Selway 
Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth 
Wilderness Areas; adjacent, mostly Federal lands, in central Idaho; and 
adjacent parts of southwest Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In January 
1995, 15 young adult wolves from Alberta, Canada were released in 
central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 
7). In January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from British Columbia were 
released (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). Central Idaho contains the 
greatest amount of highly suitable wolf habitat compared to either 
northwestern Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559). 
Consequently, the central Idaho area population has grown continuously 
and expanded its range since reintroduction. As in the Northwestern 
Montana Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's 
increase in its wolf population estimate was due to an increased 
monitoring effort by Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). By 2007, 
we estimated 885 wolves in 48 potential breeding pairs in the central 
Idaho recovery area (Service 2007a). This marks ten successive years 
(1998-2007) that this recovery area contained at least 10 breeding pair 
and 100 wolves (Service et al. 2007; Service 2007a).
    Recovery in the GYA--The GYA Recovery Area (63,700 km\2\ [24,600 
mi\2\]) includes: YNP; the Absaroka Beartooth, North Absaroka, 
Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas (the National Park/Wilderness 
units); adjacent public and private lands in Wyoming; and adjacent 
parts of Idaho and Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). The wilderness 
portions of the GYA are only seasonally used by wolves due to high 
elevation, deep snow, and low productivity in terms of sustaining year-
round wild ungulate populations (Service et al. 2007, Figure 3). In 
1995, 14 wolves representing 3 family groups from Alberta were released 
in YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; 
Phillips and Smith 1996, pp. 33-43). In 1996, this procedure was 
repeated with 17 wolves representing 4 family groups from British 
Columbia. Finally, 10 five-month-old pups removed from northwestern 
Montana were released in YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, 
p. 787). Only 2 survived past 9 months but both became breeding adults. 
By 2007, we estimated 455 wolves in 34 potential breeding pairs in the 
GYA (Service 2007a). This marks eight successive years (2000-2007) that 
this recovery area contained at least 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves 
(Service et al. 2007; Service 2007a).
    Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable in 2005, but known breeding 
pairs dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs (Service et al. 2006, 
Table 4). The population recovered in 2006, primarily because numbers 
outside YNP in Wyoming grew to about 174 wolves in 15 breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2007). Most of this decline occurred in YNP (which 
declined from 171 wolves in 16 known breeding pairs in 2004 to 118 
wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2005 (Service et al. 2005, 2006, Tables 
1-4) and likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat in YNP 
was saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appeared to 
limit population density; (3) fewer elk occur in YNP than when 
reintroduction took place (Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259; White and 
Garrott 2006, p. 942); and (4) a suspected 2005 outbreak of disease 
(canine parvovirus (CPV) or canine distemper (CD)) reduced that years'' 
pup survival to 20 percent (Service et al. 2006, Table 2; Smith et al. 
2006, p. 244; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-20). By